Hawkeye Graphical Search Interface

ABSTRACT

Some embodiments of the invention provide a graphical user interface as a means of inputing search parameters to database search engines. In some embodiments two or three dimensional projections spatially represent relationships between search parameters, located along the periphery of the projections and search hits whose significance are represented by position relative to the center of the projection and comparative distance from each of the search parameters. As the user manipulates the overall shape of the search projection, the weighting of search parameters adjusts, reconfiguring the search. The invention also provides, in some embodiments, an intuitive means of assimilating search parameter weightings based on peer or social network preferences with global search results.

REFERENCES CITED

20060235841 Oct. 19, 2006 Betz; Joseph P. 20110258184 Oct. 20, 2011 Liao; Ciya 20090006356 Jan. 1, 2009 LIAO; Ciya 20070179946 Aug. 2, 2007 Wissner-Gross

OTHER REFERENCES

(1) http://datamining.typepad.com/data_mining/2011/08/how-hard-is-the-local-search-problem.html

REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

None

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The invention is directed towards providing an intuitive means of representing and manipulating the weightings of search parameters employed by database search algorithms.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

That we are awash in information is often used, though certainly correct axiom of the early 21st century. The ubiquity of information access portals in everyday life provides the potential for connecting meaning to any experience or data set. Potential meaning is the key tenant here. How information sets are evaluated sorted and searched, remains the ultimate determinant of their actual value to the user.

Information in this modern sense may be considered as a two component entity; the first being the actual data it embodies, the second being its accessibility, based on identifying tags, anchors, or fields.

The exponential increases in both data production and storage capabilities have matched, not surprisingly, very well since “Moores Law” tales have circulated through computational communities. Data search technologies, how information is sorted and accessed, however, have experienced a much more varied history. Though the success market leaders' search algorithms such as Google's “page-rank” belie their effectiveness, the increasing volume and complexity of modern information structure has lead to increased user dissatisfaction and frustration. Three significant points of current search algorithm dissatisfaction are search algorithm dissatisfaction are search output discrepancies, search output bias, and an incongruous match of search interface with brain heuristic functioning.

Search output discrepancies may result from a circumstance referred to as the “local search problem” (1). This problem arises when global data sets containing extrinsic information are not consistently cross checked or “curated” with local data sets containing intrinsic information. For example, a search for vacation destinations may yield inconsistent output if not updated with local information such as prices, business hours and patron ratings.

Search output bias may result primarily from two causes; either because of discontinuities in search parameters weightings between the user, and the search algorithm, or because of misguiding parameter weightings through “search engine optimization” practices. In either case, miscommunication or lack of clear communication between user input and search algorithm programming may skew output away from the user's intentions.

As search engine and social networking leaders battle the concept of truth and validity on the internet, a potential problem looms for society as a whole. The popularity of social networking sites has made searching within peer preference databases very effective and appealing. A search conducted within a social network database consisting of peers with similar preferences (intrinsic data) is highly likely to produce user preferable results. Such a behavior, however, limits variation by culling preference outliers. As in biology, any system lacking diversity, while successful within it's native context, is resistant to change, slow to adapt, and quickly expends its resources.

Finally, search is a process to learn. Psychological studies of our mind's processing methods maintain that we interpret and organize stimuli based on heuristic schemas. These heuristic schemas contain impressions and rules of thumb that are based on our collective experiences. Commonly statistical methodologies are utilized to explain the occurrence of an activity(s), a decision(s), or a behavior(s). A common form of explanation through statistical measurement is through the use of multivariate mathematical modeling. Within the mathematical models it is very common to have 2-4 variables that explain the vast majority of the phenomenon under investigation. When we form opinions or judgments, we commonly utilize a couple of variables that form the heuristic schema that guide our decision making for a given decision topic.

To better match the processing methodology of our brain, an enhanced method and interface of search will enable a quicker, more sensitive, and more exhaustive search process. Currently, search is guided by a serial step by step process. Each step produces a list of results based on one dimension or variable guiding the search command interface. In order to match our minds' organized discovery process and experiential store of knowledge, the search interface could allow the simultaneous expression of multi-dimensional discovery or reasoning. The search process could be expressed as a coordinate within an area that is bound by the multi-dimensional vectors that represent the most important characteristics that involve the topic under investigation. Each vector is a mathematical expression denoting a combination of magnitude and direction. Based on the number of variables that are utilized to characterize the topic under investigation, the area of intersection between the vectors can range from uni-dimensional vector reflection to a multi-dimensional area of expression. We can use a coordinate within the range or area of expression to strengthen or reduce the importance of a variable under investigation. This toggling of coordinate placement allows the search process to maintain a view that simultaneously engages the critical characteristics that govern an intended inquiry.

Through this process the view of search will more closely match the heuristic management of new stimuli. It allows a more graphical representation of the multi-dimensional decision making process. It should speed the search process by maintaining a multi-dimensional view of the critical characteristics that are intended to guide the search. It may also enable a more exhaustive search due to the graphical sensitivity.

There exists an apparent need for an interface between user and search algorithms which would allow the joining of discontinuous data sets, an intuitive means of user awareness and manipulation of search parameter weightings as well as an effective means of searching across intrinsic and extrinsic data sets.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The invention provides a graphical interface between user and a database search algorithm or search engine. The interface provides the user an intuitive visualization of search parameter weighting hierarchy as well as a means to manually reconfigure the weighting hierarchy.

The graphical interface symbolically projects the parameter weighting hierarchy as a two or three dimensional “search space” whose center represents optimal search output. The shape of the “search space” is found to have ‘n’ vertices representing the ‘n’ parameters employed in the search. The relative distances of parameter vertices to the space center represent the relative weightings or importance of each parameter in the overall search.

As a search is initiated, vertices are determined and populated either through search engine suggestions, default settings or user definitions. Initially all parameters are weighted equally, represented as a radially symmetric shape about the optimal search output.

The interface presents the user the capability of reconfiguring the search by dragging individual parameters toward (increasing weight), away from (decreasing weight), or completely away from (eliminating parameter) the shape center. As the shape is manipulated in this fashion, optimal search results are updated in real time.

Finally, the interface allows the user to simultaneously examine multiple data sets, searching for intersection by joining parameters common to each set, or union by joining “search spaces” of each set.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1. Typical search engine output

FIG. 2. Typical search engine related search suggestions output

FIG. 3. Hawkeye “search space” 2 dimensional projection with vertices populated with search suggestion output

FIG. 4. Reconfigured Hawkeye “search space” projection

FIG. 5. Hawkeye “search space” projection weighting vacation deals in South America

FIG. 6. Hawkeye “search space” projection for summer vacation with social network profile applied in ‘search within’ mode

FIG. 7. Hawkeye “search space” projection for summer vacation with social network profile applied in ‘search beyond’ mode

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

It should be noted from the outset that the graphical user interface of the invention, hereafter denoted as Hawkeye, and explained in this description, may be employed with any database search algorithm or search engine capable of examining multiple search parameters in determining optimal match output.

Hawkeyes's capability of visualizing and reorienting search engine output as specified by the user's goals, preferences, and needs can be illustrated through using a search for ‘summer vacations’ as an example.

If the user was to enter the search parameter ‘summer vacation’ into Google's search engine, the output would be similar to the screen shot displayed in FIG. 1.

This output presents two issues that the invention addresses; one, it is impersonal in the sense that it is a generic output that does not adequately address the users goals, preferences, or needs, two, it displays the output in a list of hyperlinks potentially requiring the user to scan pages of information. In addition to these problems, the related searches that Google produces at the bottom of the initial search output page are numerous and call for extensive cross referencing of search outputs in order to determine optimal results (FIG. 2).

Hawkeye would provide the following graphical output immediately after the initial search parameter was entered as represented in FIG. 3. This initial graphical output projects a radially symmetric search space shape whose vertices are populated with the initial search parameter along with all related searches that are generated (FIG. 3). Each vertex, then represents a search parameter. The maximum and minimum number of search parameters may be default or user defined. Contained within the search space shape is a matrix of hyperlinks related to all parameters. A given hyperlink's coordinates inside the search space are determined by it's relevance to the search parameters. Nearer proximity represents higher relevance between hyperlink and search parameter. The middle region of the search space represents search output generated by equally weighting all search space parameters. Thus the center of the search space represents an optimal hit subset, most equally relevant to all search parameters—labeled ‘A’ in FIG. 3.

In order to view a hyperlink contained within the graphic, the user simply highlights the point on the graphic that is in tune with his/her goals, preferences, and needs, and the interface will display a list of hyperlinks common to that search region. If the initial search space output does match the user's intentions, the interface presents the user the capability of reconfiguring the search by dragging individual parameters toward (increasing weight), away from (decreasing weight), or completely away from (eliminating parameter) the shape center (FIG. 5). As the search space dimensions are reconfigured, its coordinate system is continually repopulated with the updated the hyperlink matrix. In this way, Hawkeye allows for users to intuitively perform a search in unison with their mental criteria for what a successful search will generate.

It should be noted at this point that two parameter cross-referencing search modes exist within the Hawkeye interface; quick search, and web search. In the quick search mode, only a parameter's relative radial distance to the center of the search space is compared to the radial distance of other parameters. This mode enables quicker searching since the absolute order of parameters about the search space perimeter does not factor into the overall search. In web search mode, the search weight of a parameter is determined by its radial distance to the search space center, as well as distances to all other search parameters. This mode may require reordering of parameter order, requiring additional interface time, though producing more parameter detailed output.

Additionally, Hawkeye interface provides a means for the user to intuitively perform searches across seeming non-compatible data bases. Comparing value preferences of a user's social network database, loosely considered intrinsic data, with extrinsic data sets such as lists of films offered through a video streaming website may be performed as follows with Hawkeye. Suppose the user would wish to conduct a search looking for a film based on how his social network preferences would value each of the search space initial search parameters; say, thriller films, foreign films, and films produced before the year 2000. To engage this ‘search within’ protocol, the user would simply encircle the Hawkeye search space with the user's social network icon to search for hits within the network preferences (FIG. 6). These types of searches are typical today within social network databases such as Facebook and Google+. If, on the other hand, the user wishes to include his/her social network preferences as an additional parameter to the search space, and ‘search beyond’ profile preferences, he/she would simply drag the social network icon inside of the search space, allowing it to populate along the search space perimeter—currently possible only through performing multiple searches and extensive cross referencing (FIG. 7). In either search, the user's final choice would update his/her value preferences of their network profile. The intricacies of these two search strategies create significant effects on a user's social network profile and, potentially, social behavior. Choices made through the ‘search within’ protocol, although comfortable to the user, and predictable to the marketer, provide no new social fodder, nothing new is added to the behavioral ‘gene pool’ of the user. Networks of this type become quickly saturated and stale of market potential. The ‘search beyond’ strategy provides the appeal of including personal preferences, while potentially introducing new information and diversifying social networks. Diverse social networks are more robust, adaptable to change, and provide a greater range of investment opportunities.

The foregoing description of the invention has been presented for purposes of illustration and description. It is not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the invention to the precise form disclosed, and other modifications and variations may be possible in light of the above teachings. The embodiments were chosen and described in order to best explain the principles of the invention and its practical application to thereby enable others skilled in the art to best utilize the invention in various embodiments and various modifications as are suited to the particular use contemplated. 

1. A graphical user interface comprising: a means of visually representing the weighting of database search criteria, a means of user manipulation of search criteria weighting, and a means of creating data searches across multiple data bases.
 2. The interface of claim 1 wherein the relative weightings of individual search criteria are visually represented by separation distances between each other and optimal search output as projected on a multi-dimensional coordinate system.
 3. The interface of claim 1 wherein the interface allows re-weightings of search criteria through manual repositioning of criteria positions represented in the coordinate system of claim
 2. 4. The interface of claim 1 wherein the user determines the number of database search criteria.
 5. The interface of claim 1 wherein a user created search examines multiple data bases, weighting data fields both common and unique to each database's structure. 